Kenetrek Boots

Senate Backs Opening New Alaska Oil Spigot

ELKCHSR

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Messages
13,765
Location
Montana
Senate Backs Opening New Alaska Oil Spigot

By Tom Doggett and Chris Baltimore

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As U.S. oil prices soared to a record high on Wednesday, the Senate gave President Bush (news - web sites)'s energy plan a major boost by voting to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling.

Republicans have tried for more than two decades to open ANWR to oil exploration. The Bush administration, which views ANWR as the centerpiece of its national energy plan, was blocked the past four years by a Senate coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats.

Pete Domenici, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, led the fight to defeat a Democratic effort to strip ANWR drilling language from a budget resolution to fund the federal government. The vote was 51 to 49 in favor of keeping the drilling provision in the bill.

However, the Republican plan to give oil companies access to the refuge is far from a done deal.

Last year, Congress failed to reach a budget agreement. The House of Representatives and Senate have sharply different versions of budget plans for tax cuts and spending reductions that may not be reconciled this year.

The refuge, about the size of South Carolina, sprawls across more than 19 million acres in northeastern Alaska. Drilling would occur in ANWR's 1.5-million acre coastal plain.

Bush welcomed the vote as a step toward making "America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, eventually by up to a million barrels of oil a day."

Opponents said there is not enough oil in the refuge to justify harming the area's caribou, polar bears and other wildlife. Instead, they say, Congress should boost mileage standards for vehicles to reduce U.S. oil demand and reliance on oil imports.

"I think it is very foolish to say that oil development in a wildlife refuge can co-exist," said Democrat Maria Cantwell of Washington, who sponsored the amendment to strike the ANWR drilling language. "For those who say somehow this is going to affect gas prices ... we won't see this oil for 10 years. It would have a minimum impact on markets."

6 BILLION BARRELS WAITING?

The government has estimated energy companies would find it cost-efficient to recover at least 6 billion barrels of oil from ANWR if prices were at or above $35 a barrel.

U.S. crude oil prices soared to a new high of $56.50 a barrel at the New York Mercantile Exchange on Wednesday, after a government report showed a steep decline in gasoline stocks.

The ANWR provision calls on the federal government to raise more than $5 billion from companies in leasing fees to hunt for oil. Alaska would keep half of the money.

Republican leaders put the ANWR provision in the budget resolution because budget bills cannot be filibustered under Senate rules, as Democrats had threatened to do to any measure that allowed drilling in the refuge. The budget resolution requires a simple majority for passage, instead of the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster on other bills.

Domenici said new drilling technology would not harm the land searched for oil. "To explore to find out whether (oil) is there will absolutely do no damage to anything," he said.

Drilling supporters also argued ANWR could eventually boost U.S. oil supplies by an extra 1 million barrels per day (bpd), cutting U.S. dependence on oil from the volatile Middle East.

The United States consumes about 20.8 million barrels of oil a day and imports account for 58 percent of supply.

With drilling costs in ANWR high compared to other oil-rich areas, energy firms are taking a wait-and-see attitude.

"We would look at (ANWR) in the same way we'd look at any other commercial opportunity in our global portfolio and would consider it on that basis. We won't speculate on what our decision would be if it were opened," a spokesman for oil giant BP said.
 
Senate OKs Alaska drilling

By William Neikirk Tribune senior correspondent

The Senate voted Wednesday to permit oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (news - web sites), handing President Bush a major victory and environmentalists a stinging defeat.

The crucial 51-49 vote retained a refuge drilling provision that the Republican majority inserted in the 2006 budget resolution. The procedural tactic prevented opponents from once again using a filibuster, requiring 60 votes to overcome, to keep the refuge off-limits to oil company development.

Democrats accused the GOP of an "end run" around the normal procedure of considering legislation. "This one is over the line," said Sen. Russ Feingold (news, bio, voting record) (D-Wis.). GOP senators countered that Democrats used the same tactic in the past to prevent filibusters.

The Senate action came on a day that oil prices reached a record high of more than $56 a barrel while gasoline prices, which have soared in the past week to more than $2 a gallon, showed no sign of abating.

With the vote, a clear legislative path opened for allowing oil companies to develop about 1.5 million acres on the coastal plain of the refuge's 19 million acres--a key element of Bush's energy policy.

But both chambers of Congress still must agree on a budget this year in order to stave off a future filibuster on the issue, which is not a certainty in the volatile political climate.

The House last week declined to include a drilling provision in its budget resolution, but any differences between the House and Senate budgets would go to a conference committee for resolution. In a number of votes in recent years, the House has been a strong supporter of allowing drilling in the refuge.

"This fight is not over," said Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) (D-Mass.), Bush's opponent in the 2004 presidential election. He called the decision to put the drilling provision in the budget a "Republican sneak attack on one of our most treasured resources."

At a news conference before the vote, Bush called on Congress to approve his comprehensive energy plan that includes drilling in the refuge. He said he is concerned about the growing demand for oil driving up its price.

"If you look at all the statistics, demand is out-racing supply, and supplies are getting tight," he said, citing a growing appetite for oil by nations with rapidly growing economies such as China.

Tapping the refuge is "a way to get some additional reserves here at home on the books," the president said.

Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record) (R-N.M.), chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, said America's energy situation is perilous. "We have to conserve and produce everything we can," he said. "The United States of America is absolutely vulnerable because we import oil from dangerous areas of the world."

The vote demonstrated the clout of a larger GOP majority in the Senate. Republicans picked up four Senate seats in the 2004 elections, and this added strength helped beat back efforts by Democrats and Republican moderates to kill the drilling provision.

Forty-eight Republicans and three Democrats--Hawaii's two senators, Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye, and Sen. Mary Landrieu (news, bio, voting record) of Louisiana--blocked 41 Democrats, seven GOP moderates and one independent from removing the drilling provision from the budget measure.

The GOP argued that the refuge eventually would produce 1 million barrels a day and help ease America's growing dependence on foreign oil. Democrats said that the measure would despoil one of the most pristine areas in the hemisphere and that conservation and use of alternative fuels would do a better job of easing the U.S. reliance on fossil fuels.

The oil industry has attempted for years to develop the refuge's oil reserves but each time has been frustrated by congressional action.

Interior Secretary Gale Norton estimated about 10.4 billion barrels of oil lie beneath the surface and companies could produce a peak of 1 million barrels of oil a day, "which would make up 20 percent of our current U.S. daily oil production."

Sen. Maria Cantwell (news, bio, voting record) (D-Wash.) downplayed any benefit of allowing oil companies to drill in the refuge. "We won't see the oil for 10 years," she said. "It will have minimal impact." She also said there is no guarantee that any oil produced in the refuge would be used in the U.S.

Sen. Larry Craig (news, bio, voting record) (R-Idaho) said any new production from Alaska likely wouldn't drive the price of oil down. "What it might do is keep the price of oil from going up," he said. And that, he said, "would be a major victory for the people of this country."

The industry, backed by the Bush administration, says modern technology can be used to tap the oil supplies without disturbing the area's ecology. But environmentalists disagreed.

"A small piece of Eden is preserved in this state," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record) (D-Conn.), arguing that opening the area to drilling would lead to degradation of the environment.

Deb Callahan, president of the League of Conservation Voters, said the vote sent "a terrible message about America's energy future. Those who want to drill in a national wildlife refuge know they could not win the argument on the merits so they had to insert it into an unrelated budget bill."

President Dwight Eisenhower set aside the area for protection in 1960, but Congress said in 1980 that, with specific congressional authorization, oil companies could drill on the coastal plain.

- - -

How the Senate voted

In a 51-49 vote, the Senate rejected an attempt to remove a drilling provision from next year's budget. So the 51 "no" votes were for keeping the provision--for drilling in the Alaskan refuge. The 49 "yes" votes were to kill the measure--against drilling.

REPUBLICANS NO (48)

Alexander, Tenn.; Allard, Colo.; Allen, Va.; Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Bunning, Ky.; Burns, Mont.; Burr, N.C.; Chambliss, Ga.; Coburn, Okla.; Cochran, Miss.; Cornyn, Texas; Craig, Idaho; Crapo, Idaho; DeMint, S.C.; Dole, N.C.; Domenici, N.M.; Ensign, Nev.; Enzi, Wyo.; Frist, Tenn.; Graham, S.C.; Grassley, Iowa; Gregg, N.H.; Hagel, Neb.; Hatch, Utah; Hutchison, Texas; Inhofe, Okla.; Isakson, Ga.; Kyl, Ariz.; Lott, Miss.; Lugar, Ind.; Martinez, Fla.; McConnell, Ky.; Murkowski, Alaska; Roberts, Kan.; Santorum, Pa.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska; Sununu, N.H.; Talent, Mo.; Thomas, Wyo.; Thune, S.D.; Vitter, La.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.

DEMOCRATS NO (3)

Akaka, Hawaii; Inouye, Hawaii; Landrieu, La.

REPUBLICANS YES (7)

Chafee, R.I.; Coleman, Minn.; Collins, Maine; DeWine, Ohio; McCain, Ariz.; Smith, Ore.; Snowe, Maine.

DEMOCRATS YES (41)

Baucus, Mont.; Bayh, Ind.; Biden, Del.; Bingaman, N.M.; Boxer, Calif.; Byrd, W.Va.; Cantwell, Wash.; Carper, Del.; Clinton, N.Y.; Conrad, N.D.; Corzine, N.J.; Dayton, Minn.; Dodd, Conn.; Dorgan, N.D.; Durbin, Ill.; Feingold, Wis.; Feinstein, Calif.; Harkin, Iowa; Johnson, S.D.; Kennedy, Mass.; Kerry, Mass.; Kohl, Wis.; Lautenberg, N.J.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Lieberman, Conn.; Lincoln, Ark.; Mikulski, Md.; Murray, Wash.; Nelson, Fla.; Nelson, Neb.; Obama, Ill.; Pryor, Ark.; Reed, R.I.; Reid, Nev.; Rockefeller, W.Va.; Salazar, Colo.; Sarbanes, Md.; Schumer, N.Y.; Stabenow, Mich.; Wyden, Ore.

OTHERS YES

Jeffords, Vt.
 
Back
Top